1 2025:CGHC:10129 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 16 of 2008 (Judgment reserved on 13.02.2025) (Judgment delivered on 28.02.2025) 1 - Bhekharam Verma, Son of Puniram Verma, aged about 22 years, R/o village Paijani, P.S. Kashdol, Chowki, Lawan, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Kashdol, Distt.-Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) C.A.V. Judgment 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.12.2007 passed in Sessions Case No. 212/2006 whereby the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Raipur, while A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 acquitting the appellant under Section 304-B of IPC convicted and sentenced him u/s 306 IPC, as under : U/s 306 of IPC : RI for seven years and fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for 18 months. 2. By impugned judgment of conviction, the trial Court acquitted appellant Bhekhram Verma and other accused namely Puniram Verma (father-in-law), Lekhram Verma (brother-in-law), Sitabai (mother-in-law), Pushpabai (sister- in-law) of the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code whereas while acquitting the appellant Bhekhram Verma of Section 304/B of the Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused and deceased Indramati got married on 13.06.2005. On 15.12.2005, Indramati consumed poison in the house of accused and she was brought to the hospital but by then she was declared brought dead. Her death was reported to her parents etc. The inquest of dead body was made by the Executive Magistrate Baloda Bazar on 15.12.2005. The body of deceased was subjected to postmortem and after examination, the Doctor gave report (Ex.P-11). Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical examination. Thereafter, on 16.12.2005 the mother and brother of deceased came and lodged a written report. FIR was registered after merg enquiry. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, map was prepared and seizures were made. After completing investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has in all examined 8 3 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents to prove its case. Thereafter the accused was examined u/s 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, the accused has also examined 1 witness and exhibited 4 documents on his behalf to defend the case. After evaluating the evidence and facts on record, the learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence, as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no sufficient evidence in this case against the appellant and the ingredients of instigation/ abetment to commit suicide are not satisfied to convict the accused/appellant u/s 306 IPC. He further submits that mere allegation of harassment is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is not justified. He prays that the impugned judgment be quashed and the appellant be acquitted. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that after considering the facts and evidence, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants, which needs no interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records. 8. It is clear from the entire prosecution evidence led by the prosecution that deceased Indramati was married to appellant Bhekharam on 13/06/2005. Indramati died by consuming poison on 15/12/2005, about 06 months after the marriage. The trial court has held that the nature of Indramati's death was suicidal. 9. Dr. Y.K. Sharma (PW-8) has stated that while examining the dead body of Indramati he found no injury of any kind and he gave report, which he proved as 4 Exhibit P-11. He has further stated that her death was found to be due to cardiac and respiratory arrest because of consumption of poison which was suicidal in nature. The above finding of the trial court is not perverse & contradictory to the facts and evidence available on record. Therefore it is proved that Indramati died due to consumption of poison and the nature of her death was suicidal. 10. It is also clear from the entire evidence led by the prosecution that Indramati died by consuming poison about 06 months after marriage. The trial court has not found it proved that Indramati was harassed for dowry which resulted in her death. According to paragraph-19 of the impugned judgment, the trial court has concluded on the basis of evidence that appellant Bhekhram Verma had illicit relationship with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi Ji) , which Indramati had seen two-three times while having illicit relationship and she had resisted it. Apart from this, the appellant had beaten Indramati 08 days before the incident. Being instigated by these circumstances, Indramati committed suicide and on the basis of the above, the appellant has been convicted under Section-306 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. In Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana 2024 SCC OnLine SC 202, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has principally laid down the factors of abetment of suicide and held that there should be clear and reliable evidence for abetment, which shows that after abetment there was no other option left for suicide. At paras 12 to 34 the Court further held thus : “12. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under :- “306. Abetment of suicide.─If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 13. Thus, the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. Abetment of a thing is 5 defined under Section 107 IPC as under:- “107. Abetment of a thing.─A person abets the doing of a thing, who─ First.─Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.─Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.─Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.─ A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.─ Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 14. This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144, has considered the provisions of Section 306 IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC observed as under:- “14 Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. ….. 15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, has defined the word ‘instigate’ as under:- “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”.” 16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190, it was observed as under:- 6 25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” 15. This Court in M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315, while explaining the necessary ingredients of Section 306 IPC in detail, observed as under:- 7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.” 16. This Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301, held that in order to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. It was observed as under:- “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of 7 human behavior and responses/ reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1 For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self- esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was 8 provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.” 17. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. The Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387, Criminal Appeal No. 1628 of 2022 decided on 12th October, 2022, after referring to the above referred decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 306 IPC observed as under:- 44. . . . It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.” 18. This Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200, observed that whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a person can be said to have abetted in doing that thing. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. 19. This Court in Kashibai v. The State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC Online SC 575, Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 2023 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8584/2022) decided on 28th February, 2023, observed that to bring the case within the purview of ‘Abetment’ under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused and for the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide. 20. Had there been any clinching evidence of 9 incessant harassment on account of which the wife was left with no other option but to put an end to her life, it could have been said that the accused intended the consequences of his act, namely, suicide. A person intends a consequence when he (1) foresees that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and (2) desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). 21. For intention in English law, Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967 provides the frame in which the mens rea is assessed. It states: “A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence, (a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reasons only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but (b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.” 22. Under Section 8(b), therefore, the jury is allowed a wide latitude in applying a hybrid test to impute intent or foresight on the basis of all the evidence. 23. It is now well settled that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of the IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous. 24. We take notice of the fact that the High Court has laid much emphasis on Section 113A of the Evidence Act. 25. Section 113A of the Evidence Act reads thus:- “113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.─When the question is whether 10 the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. Explanation.─For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in Section 498A of the Penal Code,1860 (45 of 1860)." 26. This Section was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 46 of 1983. The Penal Code,1860, the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the Evidence Act were amended keeping in view the dowry death problems in India. 27. The Section requires proof (1) that her husband or relatives subjected her to cruelty and (2) that the married woman committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage. 28. Although, it is not necessary for us to refer to Section 113B of the Evidence Act which raises presumption as to dowry death yet with a view to indicate the fine distinction between the two presumptions we are referring to Section 113B. In Section 113A the legislature has used the word ‘may’, whereas in Section 113B the word used is ‘shall’. 29. In this appeal, we are concerned with Section 113A of the Evidence Act. The mere fact that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply. The legislative mandate is that where a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act may be raised, having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. 11 30. What is important to note is that the term ‘the Court may presume having regard to all other circumstances of the case that such suicide had been abetted by her husband’ would indicate that the presumption is discretionary, unlike the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, which is mandatory. Therefore, before the presumption under Section 113A is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty or incessant harassment in that regard. 31. The court should be extremely careful in assessing evidence under section 113A for finding out if cruelty was meted out. If it transpires that a victim committing suicide was hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court would not be satisfied for holding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide was guilty. 32. Section 113A has been interpreted by this Court in Lakhjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 173, Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1998) 3 SCC 309, and Smt. Shanti v. State of Haryana, (1991) 1 SCC 371. 33. This Court has held that from the mere fact of suicide within seven years of marriage, one should not jump to the conclusion of abetment unless cruelty was proved. The court has the discretion to raise or not to raise the presumption, because of the words 'may presume'. It must take into account all the circumstances of the case which is an additional safeguard. 34. In the absence of any cogent evidence of harassment or cruelty, an accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 306 of IPC by raising presumption under Section 113A.” 12. In the light of the above judicial pronouncements, If the evidence led by the prosecution is evaluated in the instant case, then it leads to show that the deceased Indramati's grand-father Dwarka Verma (PW-4) has categorically stated 12 in his statement that when he went to the appellant's house in village Paijani about 8 days before the incident, Indramati started crying on seeing him and told that her ankle was injured due to the appellant hitting her with a stick and she was limping. On asking Indramati's father-in-law he told that she was limping because she had gone to cut the paddy. It is noteworthy that there exists no other evidence of beating deceased on record in this case. According to the post-mortem report given by Dr. Y.K. Sharma (PW-8), no injury of any kind was found on Indramati's body. In the statement of Dwarka Verma (PW-4) himself recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Exhibit D-4, it is not mentioned that Indramati had disclosed that the appellant had beaten her with a stick and the fact of beating with a stick 08 days before the incident cannot be said to be sufficient for abetment of suicide. Thus, the statement of Dwarka Verma (PW-4) is not found to be reliable beyond doubt that the appellant had beaten Indramati with a stick 08 days before the incident. 13. The second ground for abeting Indramati's is that the appellant had an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and Indramati resisted it. The trial court has also arrived at the conclusion that Indramati was instigated to commit suicide due to this reason. 14. Indramati's mother Birasbai (PW-2) has certainly stated in her court statement that it was Indramati who had told her that the appellant had illicit relationship with her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) but mother Birasbai has not given clear evidence as to what was the name of that sister-in-law with whom the appellant had developed illicit relations and whether this witness (P.W.2) even recognized her or not. Mother Birasbai has admitted in cross-examination that before the incident she had not told any of her relatives that Indramati had informed her that the appellant had an illicit relationship with his sister-in- law. Mother Birasbai has also admitted in cross-examination that she does 13 not know how many sisters-in-law (Jethaniya), Indramati has in her in-laws' house or how many sisters-in-law (Bhabhis) the appellant has in all. Thus, there is no clear evidence to show as to with which sister-in-law, Indramati had told her mother Birasbai about the appellant’s having his illicit relationship. Before the incident, it never came to the knowledge of the society or any other person other than the mother Birasbai that the appellant had an illicit relationship with any of his sister-in-laws and even after the crime, the name of that alleged sister-in-law has not been made clear. In such a situation, the statement of mother Birasbai (PW-4) is not trustworthy beyond doubt. In the light of the above judgments, the illicit relationship with the sister-in-law cannot be considered sufficient as an abetment to suicide. 15. In view of the discussion of the above evidence, this court finds that the two grounds on which the trial court has considered the appellant Bhekhram Verma to have instigated Indramati to commit suicide are not credible beyond doubt and further there is lack of sufficient evidence to base conviction. In this situation, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not found to be based on clear, sufficient and credible evidence. Hence the impugned judgment of conviction is not worth sustaining and is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence u/s 306 IPC. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 17. The appellant is on bail. He is not required to again surrender in this case. However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 14 18. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge R a o